Forum:Policies and Rules
Alright, so I know we've attempted to do this like six thousand times and none of the forums have ever actually gotten anywhere, so I'm starting a new forum and I'll be getting people's opinions on it or at least trying to with the intent to finish. I've been talking to people who have been reminding me that we need policies here otherwise we actually can't really validly ban people for things that are just "unwritten rules" (which, obviously, I know we had a forum on earlier). Yeah, unwritten rules are okay to an extent but we really do need at least one policy page stating this stuff. Personally, since we already have a manual of style, I feel like the next most important thing is a blocking policy. I think most of the time we admins handle block lengths pretty well but every now and then there's a clear issue, so I propose we think up definite lengths for each offense, etc. On that subject I feel that for actual users, it should always be Warning -> Short block -> Longer block -> Permanent ban. For IPs that are vandals, the blocks should really depend fully on the offense and we honestly can't really decide lengths beforehand since they get, um, creative. For the most part, though, I thin IPs should only be permanently blocked if they continuously vandalize/etc. and special cases; for the most part, blocks for IP vandals should be relatively short. I'm a little pressed on time at the moment os this is just a couple of random ideas I'm throwing out here, and we very obviously need a lot of community opinion to make this work. If anyone else has any other ideas for policies we need in specific, we can discuss those as well. Anyway, um, discuss. -'Minish Link' 17:54, February 20, 2012 (UTC) Discussion The first step in setting forth a policy on block severity is to classify all the various blockworthy offenses. This is what I came up with off the top of my head: *Edit warring *Obscenity (swearing/other inappropriate material) *Personal attacks *Sockpuppetry *Vandalism Am I missing any? -'Isdrak ' 19:37, February 20, 2012 (UTC) :I'm pretty sure that's about it. Constant argumentative and unproductive behavior could be on there as well, though for obvious reasons that would only be for a short block. Sockpuppeting I think would only get the person a block for one of the accounts, unless they were using the sockpuppet to get out of a ban or some other reason where we deemed a block necessary. In any case, sockpuppeting would net the person a permanent ban, I think, as that's what we've always done. Not sure about the others yet. -'Minish Link' 20:25, February 20, 2012 (UTC) :Uh, that constitutes as vandalism. Also, when responding to a forum where most people are using signatures instead of word bubbles, it's probably the best idea to go with that and not use your word bubble. -'Minish Link' 22:14, February 20, 2012 (UTC) I think that pretty much sums up the blockable offenses. One thing we'll need to deal with is different approaches to block lengths. For example, Minish, you said that you think blocks for IP vandals should be relatively short, while I have said in the past that I am not comfortable giving a short block (which I define as anything less than three weeks) to an IP who is clearly only here to vandalize. Since we already kind-of-sort-of discussed this on one of the other rules forums, I'll copy and paste what I said before since I still stand by that. "Mass page blankers and sockpuppeters are obviously permabanned, no questions asked. Edit warring should probably be either 1 week or two weeks. Inappropriate language probably warrants one week or a few days. Personal attacks, well, that depends on the severity and frequency of the attacks. That could go anywhere from a few days to a few months, or even a permaban if coupled with hostile vandalism (like replacing all of a userpage's content with racist or sexual attacks). Vandalism is also debatable, but I usually don't give obviously deliberate vandalism any less than three weeks (which usually becomes a month since 3 weeks has to be a "custom" ban time)." Jedimasterlink (talk) 01:33, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :I like the general Warning -> Short block -> Longer block -> Permanent ban thing. I'd add that at least one warning should be on the person's talk page specifically; edit summaries seem obvious to us, but some people just aren't aware they exist when they first start editing. :I think we should officially define vandalism as anything which is clearly intended to vandalize a page. I think the major issue we're having is with unwanted edits that may actually have been made in good faith, even if it's obvious to us experienced users that we don't want them. Maybe the edits were poorly done, they were made to someone else's user page, they removed a section/piece of information (the person may mistakenly think that it doesn't belong), the content is unwanted (fanon section, off the wall theory, etc.), they used a template/infobox entry/image link incorrectly, they uploaded a Zelda video, and so on. I think a user who does something like this would need to receive a clear explanation/warning on their talk page and then repeat that same unwanted edit in spite of the warning before receiving a block of any kind. Basically, even if it seems obviously stupid from an experienced editor's point of view, don't ban someone for not knowing our wiki's specific rules or how wikis work in general. It's worth the effort to give someone a simple, fair warning, and revert one more bad edit if they do end up making one; who knows, if we give them a chance they may learn the ropes and become a valuable editor. :Blatant and unquestionably intentional vandalism is the one time I think instant, long, warningless blocking is warranted. These vandals will clearly express their negative intentions by replacing pages with "Zeldaa suks go play Halop", inserting the names of gender specific organs into the text, writing "Take THIS society!" on bathroom walls with a sharpie, etc. The key here is that we do not hand out long/warningless blocks when the person does something which we see as unwanted; we only do that when the edit actually proves that they are knowingly causing a problem, and not just confused, or if they have been warned not to do something and do it anyway. I really think we can solve like 90% of our blocking issues if we can get this subject down.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 05:32, February 21, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with everything you said here. Bad edits are not the same thing as blatant vandalism. Not all blatant vandalism is as serious as page blanking or inserting crude material, though. Just about anything that can be seen as "nonsense/gibberish" (misinformation, changing content into something silly or perverted, even if only a single word) is unquestionably block-worthy. Removing content (not just a single sentence, but entire sections, infoboxes, templates, etc.) can't ever be construed as anything but vandalism. Everything you called "not helpful but not vandalism" seems correct to me, as well as saying that we can't really block people for violating one of our unwritten, not-necessarily-common-sense rules. The Warning -> Short block -> Longer block -> Permanent ban thing seems okay for people who seem to be trying to be constructive, or perhaps have been constructive in the past and have only just now committed vandalism. Jedimasterlink (talk) 15:46, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :::So so far I guess what we've got is Warning -> Short Block -> Longer Block -> Permanent Block and the offenses edit warring, obscenity, sock puppeting, vandalism, and personal attacks. I do definitely agree that it should be clear what is and isn't vandalism and Jedi seems to have done a pretty good idea of clarifying that right there. For IPs that are just screwing around (but it's possible that they are not intending to vandalize), we can just give them a warning or undo their edits; however, obviously, for those doing things Jedi mentioned as vandalism, we can go ahead and block them (1 month/three weeks sounds pretty good to me; however, we can discuss if we want to just go ahead and perma the vandals or not). I'm thinking the "Short Block" should be three days to a week, and the "longer block" should be anywhere from two weeks upward, depending on the offense. -'Minish Link' 18:27, February 21, 2012 (UTC) ::::I agree with all the above, except for a couple points on the vandalism definition. Misinformation is obviously very bad, but it can easily be added with good intentions. I've proven many pieces of information added to this wiki to be false, and I never remember anyone being blocked just for adding one of them. To get a block, I think someone would have to re-added misinformation that was removed, add something even though they know it's misinformation, or just prove through repeated failures that they're incapable of reliably distinguishing between true and false info. Just saying "misinformation" in general makes you worthy or an instant or permanent ban would be grounds to blow a lot of users out of the water, technically speaking. Changing content into something silly or perverted, yeah, that's clearly intentional vandalism, so ban away. If you remove something like the appearances sections or the infobox, it's also pretty clear that it's wanton vandalism. But if you take out a theory section, a stub template, or anything which someone could actually believe is worthy of removal, I think that would fall into "unwanted edit, but not intentional vandalism", and you'd move on to the warning (if it's a first time offender). If we say that removing a section or template can't ever be construed as anything but vandalism, then I have a backlog of blocks which would keep me out of commission for the rest of the year at least. Obviously you weren't being that literal, but you get my point, some unwanted removals can be failed attempts to help.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 23:05, February 21, 2012 (UTC) :::::Saying simply "misinformation" is indeed too broad, that's my mistake. I meant more along the lines of adding something that nobody could reasonably think happened in the game (Groose being the one to defeat Demise, finding the Triforce in the Temple of Time, etc). As for templates, that was just a bad call since sometimes templates are supposed to be removed when an article has been improved to a certain point (I had theory and non-canon templates in mind, but that's a relatively narrow subset). Removing entire sections may be justified occasionally (e.g. bad theory sections), though obviously you'll want to put an edit summary explaining why you would remove it. If you're removing Link's Twilight Princess appearance section, though, there's absolutely no good reason for that. That kind of section removal is what I meant, but it seems I needed to clarify that. Jedimasterlink (talk) 23:22, February 21, 2012 (UTC) (Resetting indent.) So I agree with the above definitions of misinformation and section removal as well. For the record, are we all in agreement that if it's a random IP who comes on and immediately blatantly vandalizes (adding swearwords/random crap/clearly obscene things, etc) an article, we can and should just block them immediately with no warning? -'Minish Link' 01:52, February 22, 2012 (UTC) :Yes. Jedimasterlink (talk) 02:35, February 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Yes. And if someone happens to do that exact thing but makes an account, I'd block them just as quickly as an IP.--[[User:Fierce Deku|'Fierce']][[User talk:Fierce Deku|'Deku']] 02:53, February 22, 2012 (UTC) Blocking Policy Alright, I think we have some pretty almost-solid ideas for the blocking policy, so let's go ahead and, uh, solidify them. I'll recap what we have so far... * Blockable offenses ** Edit warring ** Obscenity (swearing/other inappropriate material) ** Personal attacks ** Sockpuppetry ** Vandalism *** Page blanking *** Adding random gibberish *** Adding completely incorrect misinformation (Per Jedi's definition: Groose being the one to defeat Demise, finding the Triforce in the Temple of Time, etc) *** Changing words/etc. into things obscene/wrong/nonsensical * Block lengths/etc. ** Clear vandals are to be banned immediately with no warning. The exact length should be decided on, though I'm thinking from one month to perma. ** People who commit offenses that aren't the above will receive a warning, then a short block (3 days+), then a longer block (2 weeks+) and then a permanent block. I'm also thinking we should definitely make continuously not listening to direction a blockable offense (i.e. continuing to do something they've been asked to stop doing, including uploading multiple user images, making pages for things that shouldn't be made, etc.). If I've missed anything go ahead and add it in. -'Minish Link' 16:53, February 23, 2012 (UTC) :In agreement with all of the above. As FD has said, since not everyone is aware of edit summaries, let's be sure to notify people not listening to directions via their talk page at least once before blocking them. Jedimasterlink (talk) 17:17, February 23, 2012 (UTC) ::I haven't been in the discussion thus far (got an error last time I tried to make a comment, which was weird...), but I feel that all that's been said is perfectly fine. As per IP banning, don't IP addresses change? I'm pretty sure they do and if they do, I think we should try to avoid perma banning IPs for that exact reason. If an IP isn't for one individual, we might end up blocking the wrong individual in time. - McGillivray227 20:11, February 23, 2012 (UTC) Voting Okay, this needs to get done so we can work on other rules and policies. For the block policy, again, to summarize: * Blockable offenses ** Edit warring ** Obscenity (swearing/other inappropriate material) ** Personal attacks ** Sockpuppetry ** Vandalism *** Page blanking *** Adding random gibberish *** Adding completely incorrect misinformation *** Changing words/etc. into things obscene/wrong/nonsensical * Block lengths/etc. ** Clear vandals are to be banned immediately with no warning. The first ban should be one month; if they come back, perma. ** People who commit offenses that aren't the above will receive a warning on their talk page, then a short block (3 days+), then a longer block (2 weeks+) and then a permanent block. Obviously the exact wording needs to be tweaked a bit, but...All in favor just vote below, I figure. Like I said, this kind of needs to be done. -'Minish Link' 16:32, March 20, 2012 (UTC) : : -'Minish Link' 16:32, March 20, 2012 (UTC) : : Jedimasterlink (talk) 17:45, March 20, 2012 (UTC)